The deceptive human and the detection of deception

UDO UNDEUTSCH*

The actual use of investigative

physiopsychological examinations

in Germany

POLYGRAPH

Tuvya T. Amsel

The Deceptive Human and the Detection

of Deception

**

Нечестный человек и детекции лжи

Key words: detection of deception, lie and deception

If Th e Bible is a genuine representative of mankind history than lying is as ancient

as human mankind. Already in Chapter 3 of Genesis Adam and Eve try to conceal from God the fact that they had eaten from the forbidden tree. When asked by God where they are, Adam lies and answers “I was afraid, because I was naked: and I hid myself ” [Genesis 3, 10]. It is the fi rst known lie because neither was he naked nor was there a reason to hide.

Th e need to detect lies emerged with the advent of lying, which in return produced diff erent techniques of detection. Old world suspects were subject to an array of hor-rendous ordeals using mostly fi re and water alike. Th e idea behind the ordeals was that God will guide the truthful successfully through them.

DOI: 10.1515/ep-2017-0007

© year of fi rst publica on Author(s). This is an open access ar cle distributed under

the Crea ve Commons A ribu on-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license h p://crea vecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

* ta@amsel.co.il

Th ousands years later the need to detect deception has not changed. Notice the term “detection of deception” rather than “detection of lies”. Th e reason for using the fi rst term rather than the latter is simple: a  common practice among liars is deceiving rather than resorting to a straightforward lie, a practice already described in the book of Genesis when God asked Cain “Where is your brother Abel?” and Cain answered “Am I my brother’s keeper?” [Genesis 4, 9].

Deception amongst animals

It seems that deception is not a unique trait among humans only, as animals exercise it too. Some types of deception in animals are completely involuntary but others are under voluntary control and may involve an element of learning. Most instances of voluntary deception in animals involve a simple behaviour, such as a cat arching its back and puff s up its hair on the neck, to appear larger when attacked. Th ere are rela-tively few examples of animal behaviour which might be attributed to the manipula-tive type of deception which we know to occur in humans, i.e. “tactical deception”. It has been argued that true deception assumes that (1) the deceiver knows that other animals have minds, (2) minds of diff erent animals can believe diff erent things to be true (when only one of these is actually true), and (3) it can make another mind believe that something false is actually true. True deception requires the deceiver to have the mental capacity to assess diff erent representations of reality. Animal behav-iour scientists are therefore wary of interpreting a single instance of behavbehav-iour as true deception, and explain it with simpler mental processes such as learned associations. In contrast, such human activities as military deception are certainly intentional, even when they involve such methods as camoufl age, which are physically tanta-mount to methods animals use for camoufl age [Wikipedia].

Mitchell and Th ompson [1986] list four levels of deception in animals includes: 1. False markings on animals, such as butterfl y markings that indicate their heads

are at the back end of their bodies to help them escape; markings to make preda-tors appear safe

2. False behaviour, such as a predator acting so as to hide its predatory nature while around the prey

3. Feigned injury to get or divert attention; for example, a  parent bird feigning a broken wing to attract a predator away from its defenceless off spring

4. Verbal deception such as a chimp misleading other chimps to hide a food source, or a human lying in order to deceive another.

When does a human start to lie?

According to a developmental psychology model of lying suggested by Talwar

and Lee [2005]children around the age of two to three tell lies designed to conceal,

yet fail to account for the mental state of the listener. Around the age of four, chil-dren learn to tell lies that are more plausible, and by the age of seven or eight also to tell lies which are more consistent with known facts and follow-up statements. Lies told by toddlers are considered to be an important stage of development. Most toddlers think that their thoughts are transparent to the surroundings, and it is only lying that proves that they realise they are not,

Why do children lie?

Children lie for various reasons, with the most common being [Amsel 1994]: • to avoid punishment or unpleasant consequences

• the confl ict between gaining social status and the actual ability • impossibility to adapt to the social behaviour

• the need to be in control • imitation of adults • to avoid confrontation • victory of Id over Superego.

The development of Moral Judgment

Th e philosophical question whether humans are born good or bad, or as blank cards (tabula rasa) is well represented in the three main psychological approaches to hu-man moral judgment i.e. honesty and integrity. According to the psychoanalytical theory postulated by Freud, humans are born bad i.e. all they want is to satisfy their needs and instincts, which in return pushes them to resort to lies as a  means of achieving their needs. Th e cognitive theory proposed by Piaget explains that humans are born good but their life experience teaches them to lie. And the social learning theory maintains that men are born tabula rasa but their experience as toddlers and youngsters shape their behaviour making them either honest or dishonest adults.

The eff ect of lies on human behaviour

Lying is a complex process. Unlike the truth teller that just has to retrieve informa-tion from his memory, a liar has to cover up the true story, make up a convincing

fi ctitious version, memorise it, cover up his fear of detection and so forth. All these put a mental burden on his mind, a burden that produces the deceptive cues and signs that we are looking for. Yet caution should be taken when looking for these cues; simply because lying per se does not produce any physical and/or psychologi-cal and/or behavioural cues or signs. What produces the cues are the emotions that accompany the lie.

Th ere is a controversy between scientists as to which emotion or emotions generate the cues, but most believe that the fear of detection with the ensuing consequences is dominant here.

In addition, it should be emphasised that deceptive cues and signs are distinctive not only to deception. Each and every deception cue can be considered non-deceptive as well. For example, if someone avoids looking at the interviewer it does not neces-sarily mean that he is lying; it may as well be a cultural mannerism. Repeating dif-ferent phrases that are considered deceptive might be a personal regular pattern of expression. For this reason, we should fi rst establish the person’s standard verbal and nonverbal manner and only once we did so can we start discussing the issue and look for deceptive cues deviating from the standard.

Practicing lies

What follows is a common case study of a theft in an offi ce, the statement given by an alleged thief, and its analysis:

Fred’s wallet, which was left on his offi ce table, went missing. All of the employ-ees that were present on the day and had access to the table where interviewed, including the employee who stole the wallet. When the thief heard the question: “Have you stolen Fred’s wallet?” instead of answering “No.” he replied: “As far as I recall I was so busy with the end-of-the-year report that I haven’t even left my room; besides, I trust all the employees here, and I have no doubt that they are honest, and none of them is involved. It is either that Fred misplaced it and forgot about that or it must have been a messenger or a guest who visited the offi ce. Be-sides, none of us will be lured by a mere 200. Anyway, ask around and everyone will tell you how many times I have returned missing objects to their owners.” Now, let’s analyse the statement to have a better understanding of the liar’s way of thinking: His opening statement, “As far as I recall”, is a typical expression used by liars to avoid commitment. It comes in diff erent shapes and includes “to the best of my knowledge”, “unless I am mistaken”, and similar phrases. Th ey all, however, serve as an “emergency escape” in case he is confronted and told that he has been seen near

the table, from which the wallet was stolen. In that case he can always back up and answer “I told you that it is ‘as far as I recall’!”

Th e next expression: “I was so busy with the end-of-the-year report that I haven’t even left my room” has the speaker remove himself from the scene of crime, thus making us assume that as he was not there he had no opportunity to steal the wallet. Similar expressions include “I don’t know where Fred’s desk is” and “I wasn’t in the offi ce when it happened”.

He then proceeds to say “I trust all the employees here, and I have no doubt that they are honest, and none of them is involved. It is either that Fred misplaced it and forgot about that or it must have been a messenger or a guest who visited the offi ce”. What the speaker does now is to shift the suspicion from the offi ce personnel and to speculate that either there was no theft at all or the fault lies with an anonymous person only visiting the offi ce. By doing so he indirectly removes the suspicion from himself, as he is one of the offi ce employees.

His next sentence: “Besides, none of us will be lured by a mere 200” is an indirect way of saying: “200 is too small amount for me” which can be translated into “I lack the motive to steal”.

Last but defi nitely not least he says “Anyway, ask around and everyone will tell you how many times I have returned missing objects to their owners”, and now he is pleading to be an honest person who does not have the right personality to steal. Similar expressions I have heard aplenty, include “I am a volunteer policeman” or “I am an orthodox religious person who follows God’s commands to the iota”. An additional yet extremely important aspect of the analysis is what was not said. Th e thief did not bluntly deny the allegation. He did not answered “No.” as innocent people do. Instead of giving us the short version, he baffl es us up with his long and tedious statement. Analysing carefully his words, you fi nd no denial of the allegation but rather statements that lead the listener to the conclusion that he denied the al-legation, and therefore he is innocent. It is the listener’s personal conclusion but not a denial, and that establishes the rule that says: if it was not said it never happened. Innocent suspects deny the allegation straightforwardly, without giving such long statements. Th e only exception to this rule is an unstructured interview yet, this rule is valid as long as you follow the structured interview. Moreover, the statement as a whole serves as a diversion.

Th ese cues and signs are but tactical expressions of the deceptive strategy which is:

Th e rationale behind this strategy is basic: people doubt illogical statements. Illogi-cal statement raise doubt and disbelief, which in return raises lots of questions, and questions are the guilty person’s mine fi eld, one that the guilty desperately tries to avoid.

Please do not infer that innocent people do not make logical statements. But logic is the least concern of an innocent truthful teller. Th ey just report what happened and they are not concerned with logic simply because they are not afraid of being asked questions – they have all the answers.

Because of this strategy, questioned guilty people commonly use such phrases as: “doesn’t that make sense?” or “isn’t it logical?”. Like an interviewee describing an ac-cident that he was involved in: “While driving I entered the junction and a vehicle that came from my left hit my door with its front part. As a result I was thrown for-ward, and hit the front windshield with my forehead”. Th e puzzled interviewer asks: “Are you sure you were thrown forward? Because, if you got hit from the left side, you should have been thrown to your right and not forward.” A truthful interviewee will think for a  second, digesting the information, and then answer: “You know I never thought of it, you are absolutely right but this is exactly what happened”. A deceptive respondent will by now have realised there is a logical fl aw in his state-ment and will quickly formulate a new physics law of motion to be added to New-ton’s Laws, and answer along the lines: “Wrong. Wherever there is a combination of velocity and angle, objects move forward.”

Th e liar’s reason to deceive rather than tell a blatant lie is very practical: he does not know what type of information the interviewer possess so to avoid getting caught lying he must have an “emergency escape” should he be confronted with facts deny-ing his statement.

Practicing detection of deception

Th e process described here is simple yet it takes training and more than that: a great deal of practice. Yet everyone can get there as long as they perform within the bound-aries of the structured interview and if and only if they totally ignore their fi rst im-pression as well as any bias and/or prejudice. As long as someone follows the detec-tion rules and concentrates on the interviewee’s words, their detecdetec-tion of decepdetec-tion will be accurate.

Th e rules are simple: open the discussion with small talk and establish what the speakers verbal and nonverbal norms are by looking for the deceptive cues and signs.

If such a sign as avoiding eye contact comes up, ignore that sign when discussing the relevant issue. If it does not, look for it while discussing the relevant issue. Look for as many (at least ten) deceptive clues as possible surfacing when making a relevant statement.

Look for the following groups of deceptive sign and clues: • Constant control

Reason: avoiding any slips of the tongue and\or suspicious moves Result: unspontaneous behaviour

Examples:

in verbal communication

stalled answers or changing the subject in nonverbal communication

verbal unsynchronized with nonverbal • Guilty feelings

Reason: telling lies

Result: physical and psychological uneasiness Examples:

in nonverbal communication Breaking eye contact

Excessive movements • Persuasion

Reason: argument in favour of the deceptive version Result: using various persuasive phrases

Examples:

in verbal communication

“I have no reason to do it” (lack of motivation) “I have never been investigated before”

“I am an honest person”

“I swear to you... on my kids\Th e Bible\etc. “To tell you the truth”

“I was not in the neighbourhood” (opportunity) “I have an alibi”

logical explanations lack of feelings over descriptive in nonverbal communication smile laughter

• Flattery

Reason: softening the investigator Result: using various fl attering phrases Example:

in verbal communication “What a lovely offi ce” “What a beautiful family”

“What an interesting work you have” “Jo says hello”

“An excellent question” super friendly • Stalling

Reason: looking for the right answer Result: delaying the answer to the question Example:

in verbal communication

“Can you explain please”

“Th is reminds me of... “ – changing the subject “Please repeat the question”

repeating the question

not answering - silence or indirect answers in verbal communication

biting lips closed mouth • Physical stimulation

Reason: tension, stress, anxiety Result: physical stimulation

Example: verbal communication – over talkative in nonverbal communication scratching accelerated pulse perspiration blushing stuttering • Attack

Reason: “off ense is the best defence” Result: aggressive behaviour Example:

in verbal communication

“Don’t you believe me?”

“It’s very cold\hot here” - complaints “What kind of questions are they?” in nonverbal communication

pointing with fi ngers • Pity

Reason: softening the investigator Result: emotional phrases Example:

in verbal communication

reporting death\sickness\problems

“Don’t ask what I’ve been going through lately” “Th ey always blame me”

in nonverbal communication faked weeping • Evasive behaviour

Reason: avoiding the investigator and\or lying Result: evasive phrases

Example:

in verbal communication “I have no idea” “I don’t recall” “I don’t know”

does not commit himself\herself in nonverbal communication

whistling

sitting on a part of the chair standing aside

Remarks about body language

Th e clarity and signifi cance of body language, or nonverbal communication as we call it, is exaggerated. Body language contains a great deal of clues about nervousness and uneasiness but very few deception cues and sign per se. Yet the lack of quantity is compensated by quality. Concentrate therefore on the words. that is what is called verbal communication cues, and listen carefully and attentively to every word spoken as well as unspoken, because sometimes what has not been said is very meaningful.

Words of caution:

Some polygraph examiners consider the examinee’s verbal and nonverbal deceptive clues and signs and the examinee’s behavioural symptoms additional channels of in-formation that help them to make the fi nal decision. Th ere are also some polygraph techniques to help that. Th is approach may, however, bias the examiner and her/ his decision making process to the point where instead of “believing the chart” the examiner “ignores the chart”.

We do not factor the examinee’s verbal and nonverbal behavioural clues and signs into our decision making process, nor do those clues serve us operationally in our decision making process. Th e only practical implementation of this practice is to: • understand the deceptive individual’s psychological state of mind

• in the pre-test – to assess the veracity of the examinee’s answers to the comparison questions in order to evaluate the eff ectiveness of the question

• in the post-test – to assess the veracity of the examinee’s explanations of why s/ he responded to the relevant questions and in return to decide whether an ex-tra chart (with questions changes resulting from the explanation) is necessary or whether to start asking questions.

Th e verbal and nonverbal detection of deception can only be applied during the pre-test interview and in the immediate post-pre-test stage. In other words only when the examinee is not being confronted, and her/his version is not received in disbelief. Once the examiner displays disbelief and mistrust in the examinee’s version, such a behaviour may have an eff ect on the examinee’s behaviour to the point of distort-ing the analysis.

References

Th e Old Testament, Th e book of Genesis, 3 (10), King James version. Th e Old Testament, Th e book of Genesis, 4 (9), King James version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_in_animals.

R.W. Mitchell, N.S. Th ompson (1986), Deception, Perspectives on Human and Nonhu-man Deceit, SUNY Press, 21–29.

V. Talwar, K. Lee (2008), Social and Cognitive Correlates of Children’s Lying Behav-iour, Child Development, 79 (4), 866–881.